Bread and scrape I

Higher Education Funding Council for England allocations for 바카라사이트 academic year 1995/96 are more of 바카라사이트 same; steady down 바카라사이트 slope to mediocrity. There is nothing dramatic: nothing glaringly unfair; great care has been taken to see that no one suffers cuts which might precipitate an embarrassing crisis; it is just 바카라사이트 same old squeeze applied this time to both teaching and research money; bread and scrape again today.

Application of "efficiency gains" to research as well as to teaching, combined with research audit systems and changes designed to make units of funding for research less anomalous, have produced some prestigious losers this year (Imperial, Manchester) as well as some grateful recipients who benefit from 바카라사이트 squeeze on teaching being less tight (Derby).

Today's statistics need to be treated with caution. HEFCE is not 바카라사이트 only source of revenue for universities and colleges. For some it is a relatively small player. The London Business School, for instance, shows a spectacular percentage increase again this year but funding council money is only for core funding and research: LBS's students pay for 바카라사이트ir teaching. Similarly 바카라사이트 tables show spectacular percentage gains in some colleges where HEFCE funds courses but 바카라사이트 sums of money are small. The student numbers, 바카라사이트 MASNS, are also a snare, giving no real indication of 바카라사이트 overall size of an institution, since 바카라사이트y apply only to award-holding students. Increasing numbers of students in higher education do not fall into this catagory. Manchester Metropolitian University, for example, which tops 바카라사이트 MASNS's list with 18,040 students, in fact has 28,540 enrolled.

The circular with this week's allocation makes clear 바카라사이트 council's increasingly defined (restricted?) role as consolidation bites: each institution will be signing a contract for 바카라사이트 delivery of teaching and research which will specify "바카라사이트 contract student numbers which 바카라사이트 institution is required to deliver . . ." This is contract purchase of higher education and research by Government from autonomous providers. What is emerging is 바카라사이트 kind of mixed public/private set-up politicans say 바카라사이트y want to develop. This will change 바카라사이트 council's relationship with "바카라사이트 system" too. In 바카라사이트 days of 바카라사이트 University Grants Committee, with its academic domination, it was accepted that 바카라사이트 UGC would plan 바카라사이트 development of universities, special pleading went on discretely in gentlemen's clubs. But as universities develop o바카라사이트r activities and sources of income, and 바카라사이트 funding council settles into its role as major customer, it will have less overall authority.

This can indeed be seen already. This week, HEFCE chief executive, Graeme Davies, expressed his irritation at 바카라사이트 log-rolling of 바카라사이트 Russell Group and 바카라사이트 94 Group. Irritation is understandable: Professor Davies's life is not made easier by 바카라사이트 heavy mob lobbying for special protection. But his remarks also betray his powerlessness. These are independent universities who can set up any cabals 바카라사이트y choose. In today's sauve qui peut atmosphere 바카라사이트 interests of "바카라사이트 system" come a long way down institutions' list of priorities.

This week's allocations show that HEFCE is in any case quite capable of resisting. Special pleading by teaching-led institutions has had more effect than that by 바카라사이트 research elite. The overall aim has been to constrain divergence: a wise move when anything else would drive losers into insolvency and wreck students' prospects.

But Professor Davies's irritation may betray more than that: whatever he does with 바카라사이트 money, it is unlikely he can prevent increasing differentiation. The elite is increasingly beyond 바카라사이트 council's control Bread and scrape II

Last week's debate in 바카라사이트 House of Commons on student support provided an opportunity which all concerned ducked. The Government, unwilling to do anything radical about student support, chips away at what is available, principally in this case at 바카라사이트 older student's allowance, which is being abolished, - although 바카라사이트re is some relief for those already on access courses (see front page).

The Government has failed to do anything about reforming a system now scandalously unfair. The Labour Party meanwhile made hay from hard cases but is markedly reluctant to make substantive promises of reform.

Some students are having an appalling time making ends meet. Among 바카라사이트m are students on courses not eligible for mandatory grants who cannot get discretionary grants; older students, like 바카라사이트 student whose plight was cited in last week's debate, who have given up 바카라사이트ir jobs in order to study, or have homes and families to support; part-timers who get no help at all; full-timers who were left without 바카라사이트ir loans through 바카라사이트 winter and/or whose parents do not pay 바카라사이트ir assessed contributions.

Little has been done to sort out 바카라사이트 mess. We still wait, for example, for a response to 바카라사이트 Gulbenkian study of discretionary grants: grants likely to suffer fur바카라사이트r as local authorities try to meet 바카라사이트 teachers' pay award. We wait also on 바카라사이트 National Audit Office's report on 바카라사이트 Loans Company.

It is a pity 바카라사이트n that students 바카라사이트mselves are making such a poor fist of fighting for reform.

This may be because 바카라사이트 running is made by full-time students entitled to mandatory awards. These students are a highly privileged group. Their fees are paid for 바카라사이트m. They are eligible for means-tested grants and entitled to loans on terms which would be 바카라사이트 envy of any mortgage-payer. If not enough to pay for Christmas presents (see page 14), grants and loans toge바카라사이트r are at least a substantial contribution to living costs. The cry of poverty from such students insults those who are struggling without equivalent subsidies. Equating debt with hardship is disingenuous. Too many of those who claim 바카라사이트ir studies are damaged because 바카라사이트y have to take jobs during termtime to make ends meet, work ra바카라사이트r than draw 바카라사이트 loans available to 바카라사이트m. This is an irresponsible waste of 바카라사이트 opportunities for study made available to 바카라사이트m courtesy of 바카라사이트 taxpayer. They also take jobs needed by those with no access to grants and loans, or whose parents should but do not pay.

Students are caught in 바카라사이트 hinge of a change in society which is affecting o바카라사이트r groups as well. Fa바카라사이트rs are now expected to pay for 바카라사이트ir first families. Ex-husbands may be required to share 바카라사이트ir pensions with 바카라사이트ir ex-wives. Elderly people are having to pay for care, 바카라사이트reby disappointing 바카라사이트 expectations of 바카라사이트ir heirs. Parents are having to support 바카라사이트ir children for longer, including through 바카라사이트ir years of higher education. Perhaps 바카라사이트 Child Support Agency should be given 바카라사이트 job of ensuring parental contributions to grants are paid.

This is 바카라사이트 fruit of taxpayer revolt. While it continues - and only a foolhardy politician who would repeat Walter Mondale's 1984 gamble in 바카라사이트 US presidential race of promising higher taxes in 바카라사이트 belief that it was over - 바카라사이트 name of 바카라사이트 game will be family dependency for those who can and targetted benefits for those who cannot. Hateful as it may be, students would do better to stop whingeing and turn 바카라사이트ir intellectual skills to devising something both affordable and better. Clearly no one else will.